Thursday, January 21, 2016

Against Trump

National Review Online has put together a stream of columns by conservatives against Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for President. It's worth looking at here. I'm pretty sure they tried to put together their most influential bunch, because some of them I don't like and others I really do. All things considered, it's a hefty sampling. They don't tell us who is good. They don't. Maybe they don't know. I guess it's anybody but Trump, but if it isn't Trump, why should someone vote for someone else? Rubio? Cruz? Christie? Kasich? Bush? Carson?

The other day when the media mocked someone for misusing the Bible, when Trump said "Two Corinthians," which is how you would hear it from someone from Britain, a day later, when there was a bad van crash of Ben Carson staffers, Cruz tweeted.

Heidi and I are lifting up in prayer the @RealBenCarson staffers injured in a car accident in Iowa. By His stripes, we are healed. Is. 53:5.

One wonders if Cruz even knows what "he" tweeted or if some lackey staffer does that sort of thing for him. Of course, he'd still be responsible, but in a different way than if he were the one who misused Is. 53.

I am curious, Thomas and Kent, about this issue. Do you believe the Lord would have you vote for a particular candidate? Would he be pleased if you voted for Pol A over Pol B, and regard it as an offense if you deviated? How do you make that determination?

Cruz in many ways seems like a solid, conservative candidate. On the other hand, can a person really get this far in life and not be beholden to the bankers, who really do control the world? (That's a rhetorical question; I'm not claiming I know the correct answer.) Many people questions whether he is too much of another candidate bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs, just like Obama.

Bush's history of family involvement with the Nazi's does not appeal to me either.

Right now, Trump has my vote. Although, to be honest, I really don't know if he's legitimate yet or not.

Thanks for the question. I believe we have a responsibility to be salt and light and to do what we can to restrain wickedness and support righteousness, and to that end we should use our rights as citizens the way Paul used his Roman citizenship. God would be pleased if we contributed to someone that defends religious liberty, is against the murder of little babies, etc. rather than someone who is for murder and believes a right to sodomize is more important that religious liberty. A misuse of those prerogatives would indeed constitute a sin. I believe people can disagree on what a misuse is, however, because we are not as wise as God, who knows in all situations what is always the best decision.

I also agree with Bro Boys that Trump is a rude, crude, lewd dude, and I agree with National Review on Trump, who is by far the worst of all the Republican candidates and who has some positions to the left of Hillary Clinton (e. g., support an absolute government takeover of health care) and has supported positions to the left of Sanders that are soft communism (e. g, steal 14% of the wealth, not the income, but the wealth of enough people to pay off the national debt, a form of lite communism, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-proposed-biggest-tax-hike/story?id=32926722). Trump says he doesn't support his communist 14% stealing plan now, but not because it is immoral, unconstitutional, etc. but because "our economy has changed" and, more likely, because he is trying to win a Republican primary. If he can support killing innocent adults and children who have criminal relatives, perhaps the economy can change back again to where communism is good. He still supports taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, BTW (http://onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2015/08/12/trump-supports-funding-planned-parenthood).

Lots of interesting thoughts in this thread. Mr. Ross, why do you encourage people to withdraw from the political process and not vote? While I can respect it, I think it's misguided and frankly ignorant and naive to be completely withdrawn from the political affairs. But, I do understand the reasoning behind it and can understand how people can come to this conclusion.

I think we should at least try to vote and give it a good effort. I do agree with you that if we have electronic voting and not paper ballots that an election can be very easily swayed in whatever direction the powers that be want it to go. Even if there is voter fraud, I believe it's a good idea to at least give it an effort and vote your conscious, even if your vote will not matter.

I don't understand your question about bankers either. We all know that bankers control the world, but at least not everyone is completely in their pocket and some have the courage to speak up. Ron Paul for years has spoken about the dangers of the Federal Reserve while the majority of other candidates have been silent. His son has thankfully taken up some of the same issues, but we unfortunately he doesn't have a chance. If we care about the country, it is our duty to vote for these types of candidates, even though in likelihood they will not win. But again, that's fatalistic thinking. I like Bernie Sanders because he too has had the courage to make comments about the bankers having too much control over the world. Unfortunately, that's about the only thing I agree with him on and would never vote for a Socialist, even though he is totally correct on some issues. Socialism is a not a fair or legitimate system in a fallen world.

Sometimes you have to vote the least worst candidate in an election and like others have alluded to, most of the candidates are bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs and the ilk. I have no idea if Trump is legitimate or a total fraud, but if nothing else, he appears to be the least worst.

KJB, I'm not trying to pile on, but I find your views and others who share them fascinating. Just because Trump once disagreed with a crude, obnoxious person who happened to gay, you jump on the bandwagon that he is "lewd and crude" by having the audacity to not pander to anyone because of their sexual lifestyle. Yet at the same time, you make comments about the "right to sodomize? Your views seem disjointed and incongruous and I can't make sense of them. I've heard other conservatives make similar comments and it totally baffles me.

Thanks for the reply. I actually think that all people who will vote for people who honor God and His Word and are as close as possible to following the Constitution should vote. Thus, in general elections I hope that Democrats stay home and conservatives vote. Thus, in the Republican primary, I would encourage Cruz supporters and supporters of other electable conservatives (Rubio, etc.) to vote, while I would hope that as few people who are opponents of godliness and liberty vote as possible. Since Trump is by far the most liberal person in the Republican field, both on social and economic issues--and, in some areas, is more liberal than Hillary and Sanders, I hope that all of his supporters will stay home and refrain from voting. Furthermore, in refraining from voting they will be following Trump's own example, as he has never in his life voted in a Republican primary.

I would be interested in seeing the evidence that Goldman Sachs is bribing the large majority of our elected officials to support whatever their supposed interests are. Do you have the documents to support this? Why do our elected officials disagree on so many aspects of economic policy if they are all getting bribed by Goldman Sachs to support the company's supposedly nefarious interests? Why can the company control the entire political apparatus and keep everything so hush-hush that nobody knows this is happening, but they can't shut down some crackpot websites that expose their alleged conspiracy?

I think the Federal Reserve is a bad idea, and Ron Paul is correct on this. Did Dr. Paul ever say, though, that Goldman Sachs is bribing the majority of our elected officials to support their supposed agenda, or that a cartel of bankers (or, if you are a Nazi or a Muslim extremist, Jewish bankers) are controlling the world? That is a very different proposition from saying that we would be better off without the Fed.

KJB, I don't have any documents in front of me, but it doesn't take much digging to see that many politicians are bought and paid for by entities such as GS.

I find your comments horribly naive. (Please don't take that as being unkind, as "naive" is not meant as a pejorative.) Are you actually serious in your comments? "Why can the company control the entire political apparatus and keep everything so hush-hush that nobody knows this is happening, but they can't shut down some crackpot websites that expose their alleged conspiracy?" I am sorry, but your use of "crackpot websites" only exposes that you are very misguided.

"Did Dr. Paul ever say, though, that Goldman Sachs is bribing the majority of our elected officials to support their supposed agenda, or that a cartel of bankers (or, if you are a Nazi or a Muslim extremist, Jewish bankers) are controlling the world?"

Dr. Paul is an intelligent person who knows how to keep his message alive and what language not to use. If he came right out and said some things, he would be written off and put on the shelf. He says enough to make even an elementary school child have enough into to do some research on their own and be able to "read between the lines" about what is really going on.

You actually think bankers DON'T control the world? Are you actually making a serious comment?!

By the way, I do agree with you about the statements about the Jewish bankers. Yes, many central bankers are Jewish, but I don't buy into the "Jewish conspiracy" thing at all. It's actually a conglomeration of people of all types, not a "Jewish" thing. (As a side note, the Jesuits probably have a lot more power then "the Jews." But I suppose you'll mock me for stating that. :) That's ok. )

es, I am serious. A secret group of bankers cannot control the world, for reasons given in, e. g., the article on the subject here:

http://faithsaves.net/politics/

And, yes, I would like to see the bribes from Goldman Sachs to the majority of the members of our national (and, I suppose, state and even local) governments, and how they can bribe thousands of people like this while not a peep of this is ever exposed.

I would also like to know which banks specifically control the world. It can't be the ones that go out of business, of course, and the banks that are still profitable are all competing with each other and want to drive the other banks out of business. Please let me know which banks you are referring to, and why the banks who aren't in on it don't expose them.

What year did the bankers start to control the world?

So Ron Paul is afraid to speak the truth, and that is why he never said what you did?

I'm not publishing either of your most recent comments. I might have given you a little extra time if you posted under your real name, but to insult someone anonymously is absolute cowardice. Most of what you write doesn't make any sense either, but I'm not going to give you an anonymous forum to write in your pajamas while you chomp on cheetos.

WORD OF TRUTH CONFERENCE

About Me

I got lots of learnin when I was in cemetery. I also gots books I try to read. I has preecht throo most of the books of the Bible spositorally. I is marreed and has 4 youngins---3 is gurlz. Me am indipendint Babtist. Pleeez reed my blog.